In late September, Corcept Therapeutics finally went to trial against Teva in the parties’ long-running patent dispute over Teva’s prospective generic for Korlym. The Hatch-Waxman litigation between the two companies has been waging since 2018. Numerous patents have come in and out of the case over that time. Yet, by the time of the trial a few weeks ago, Corcept had narrowed its case down to alleging Teva’s infringement of only two patents: U.S. Patent No. 10,195,214 and 10,842,800. The parties’ post-trial brief have been filed. What do they say?
Read MoreWe previously blogged about Teva’s ($TEVA) petition for post-grant review (PGR) of Corcept Therapeutics’ ($CORT) ‘214 patent. Since then, on November 20, 2019, the PTAB granted institution of Teva’s petition. The proceeding will now be litigated for another year before a final decision. On a recent earnings call, Corcept stated that it believes the standard for institution is “pretty low,” and not necessarily dispositive that Teva will prevail. Now that we have the institution decision, what can we glean from it, and how likely is that Corcept’s patent survives?
Read MoreThe saga over Corcept Therapeutics’s ($CORT) patent battles against prospective generics for Korlym® is approaching another stage. We previously discussed Teva’s ($TEVA) petition for post-grant review (PGR) of the ‘214 patent. Corcept has filed its preliminary response to Teva’s PGR, and the PTAB is scheduled to decide whether or not to institute the PGR by about November 23, 2019. The ‘214 patent is potentially the strong patent Corcept is currently wielding against generics, since it arguably does read upon Korlym®’s label. Now that the papers are in, what are the odds Teva’s PGR is instituted?
Read More